Involuntary Outpatient Commitment

4376 Words9 Pages

Involuntary Outpatient Commitment

In 1955, over 559,000 individuals resided in inpatient psychiatric hospitals. By 1995, however, the number had drastically diminished to 69,000, (National Health Policy Forum, 2000). This drastic reduction was largely due to the discovery of antipsychotic medications in the 1950s, and the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, wherein several thousands of mentally ill individuals were released from psychiatric institutions to return to their communities for treatment. Mental health centers (MHCs) were conceptualized during deinstitutionalization to provide treatment to these newly-released mentally ill persons in their communities. Although efforts were well-intended, the MHCs failed to serve the neediest subset of individuals. Instead, they served those who had minor psychiatric diagnoses and needed little treatment. As a result, the United States experienced an increase in the number of homeless individuals, most of whom still exhibited psychotic symptoms. Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) was created to serve those “forgotten” mentally ill individuals without placing them back in institutions. Ideally, IOC will increase community tenure for the severely mentally ill, decrease the likelihood of decompensation, and provide the necessary treatment by means less restrictive than hospitalization, (Borum et al., 1999).

IOC is a civil procedure whereby a judge orders a person with a mental illness to comply with outpatient treatment within the community, or risk sanctions such as being forcibly brought to treatment by law enforcement officials, (Swartz et al., 2003). The legal authority in IOC is the state’s parens patriae power, which provides for the protection of disabled individuals, and its police power, which involves the protection of others. IOC is commonly used for persons with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or other psychoses, especially if there is a history of medication non-compliance or repeated inpatient psychiatric admissions, (Torrey & Kaplan, 1995). The national Department of Mental Health receives a certain amount of money each year from the federal government. From this, state mental health departments draw a significant amount of their funds. It is through the state mental health departments that IOC is largely funded. Although IOC is delivered at the local level, those municipalities...

... middle of paper ...

...IOC as it is currently stated.

As discussed above, I feel that IOC would be most effective if other components were combined with it, if there was a way to ensure that treatment staff wholeheartedly attempts to rehabilitate individuals, and if treatments last longer than six months. Additionally, more money needs to be supplied to local mental health centers to ensure that treatment is adequate. Although many might oppose more money going into a service sector that they believe is already receiving too much money, I believe if social workers and other mental health advocates could show the public how necessary IOC is, getting an increase in resources would not be difficult to procure.

In closing, IOC was created to serve those mentally ill individuals who need treatment, but not necessarily in an inpatient setting or through voluntary treatment. IOC possesses several strengths that exhibit its utility in today’s society. As social workers, although we may disagree with the coercion element of it, we should endorse IOC, as it only betters the lives of mentally ill individuals who are largely misunderstood, largely under treated, and largely deserving of our support.

Open Document